I recently bought the IS version and its tremendous. Really, what you get depends on you and what type of things you shoot, but for me its extremely helpful. I've used this lens for portrait, small wildlife and action type stuff. Its been tremendous, and several times the IS has made a difference between getting the shot or not.

I haven't used the non IS version, but I do hear that it is far lighter. Again, this may or maynot be an issue for you, but it is helpfull.

All in all I would heartily recomend the IS version, but I doubt their is anything wrong with the non IS.

The conclusion is: "The decision between the non-IS and the IS version of this lens is a no-brainer. The extra $750 gets you a lens with far greater versatility. It will get you shots that you otherwise will miss. If that's not worth the extra money, I don't know what is".

That said, if you constantly shoot fast moving objects and use a tripod, IS will have very little to offer you.

I am buying either the EF 70-200mm Canon F2.8L USM or the F2.8 IS USM, but I would like some quick feedback as to whether the IS is really worth the extra $500-$600 bucks. My purchase will be made in the next few days. I have just sold my 70-200mm F4L and need to replace it ASAP. Thank in advance for your input.

I have the f/4 version, and it is a nice weight and superb optics. I don't need more speed for what I do, but I often wish I had IS. But I'm not sure whether I would like to carry double the weight around. If I needed f/2.8, I'd certainly spend the extra for IS.

Eric

Agreed. I'd pop for a f4 IS version immediately. $999 would be a sweet spot.

That said, if you constantly shoot fast moving objects and use a tripod, IS will have very little to offer you.

Yes, but just in case someone now thinks that IS doesn't help on a tripod:

Wind.

The 70-200 IS understands when it's on a tripod, so it really helps under windy conditions. There would be many situations where I wouldn't be able to take usable images at maximum tele with the 1.4 extender otherwise. (I might get something that I could throw on the web, but, erh.)

The choice, providing $ makes all the 70-200 L lenses possible, is between the f/4 and f/2.8 IS. If you're going to the size and mass of the f/2.8, do it right and get the IS... it is worth the extra $.

I have owned the non-IS 70-200, and now use the IS version. I have not used the f4 version but from reports from many users the f4 and f2.8 non-IS comparable. The IS in this lens is quite spectacular and makes non-tripod photography possible again. Your choice however will depending on your style of photography as well as your pocket. If you take it slow, a sort of contemplative photography using a tripod.. then the IS may not be necessary. If you do any hand-holding though, even occasionally, then the IS is a must.One con on the IS version... the bokeh is somewhat different to the non-IS version, and in some circumstances distracting. I have yet to work out what combintations of factors that brings this "funny" bokeh on, but it is nevertheless there... Having said that in the same photographic situation with a non-IS lens, I would probably just have ended up with a fuzzy shot.. :-)Good luck in your decision, but for me the IS in this lens was really worth every penny, as I love hand-holding candid photography.

I have a 70-300mm non I.S.,and a 75-300mm I.S.When I bought the I.S.,I decided to see just how much I could get away with.I took a shot at the 300mm end at 1/60-there was NO TRACE of shake!I'd NEVER even DREAM of trying that with a non-I.S.!

Logged

"Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing"-Wernher Von Braun"Imagination is more important than knowledge"-Einstein"Only put off until tomorrow that which you are prepared to die having not done"-Pablo Picasso

If we're dreaming, the only thing stopping me from buying Canon's 400 f/5.6L is the lack of IS. Nice, sharp and light weight. I've tried the "reasonable" Canon alternatives (300 F/4 L IS and 100-400 L IS) and they had too many compromises.

The L IS super teles are way too big, not to mention way too expensive for non-pro sports and wildlife shooters. I lust after the 500 F4 L IS, though.

I happen to think IS is worth it; my 70-200 L IS gets a lot of use both hand-held and on tripod. Hand-held in all light levels, IS makes framing much easier. In low light, I can get sharper pictures with IS at slower shutter speeds than without IS. NOTE: IS does not stop action at slow shutter speeds - moving subjects will still blur.

I can't speak to the non-IS version since I have never used one. I understand that it it is optically excellent.

That said, you will find the L IS zoom MUCH bigger and heavier than the 70-200 f/4 L. It will definitely not be as easy to carry around as the f/4 zoom.

A lot depends on your budget and how you intend to use the L IS zoom, but I am very glad I went the extra $$.

I have the f/4 version, and it is a nice weight and superb optics. I don't need more speed for what I do, but I often wish I had IS. But I'm not sure whether I would like to carry double the weight around. If I needed f/2.8, I'd certainly spend the extra for IS.

The choice, providing $ makes all the 70-200 L lenses possible, is between the f/4 and f/2.8 IS. If you're going to the size and mass of the f/2.8, do it right and get the IS... it is worth the extra $.

The ideal would be, for me, the f/4 with IS, but that's just a dream.

I struggled with this choice in the spring and I'm glad I got the IS.

N

And, logic would dictate, the limitation of f/4 versus f/2.8 (longer shutter speeds at wide open aperture), would indicate that the IS feature would be even more valuable to owners of the compact f/4 lens. The f/4 should be preferred for walk around application - the very driver behind IS.

From a commercial standpoint I can't see Canon ever doing an f/4 IS, but I'm dreaming right along with you.

Perhaps they somehow think that the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM (I think I'll henceforth refer to it as "the big mouthful") fills that market.

I passed on the two 70-200/2.8 lenses as too heavy, and never really looked at the 70-300 DO. So now I just checked the specs to see how much heavier it would be than my 70-200/4 L.

70-200/4L is 1.56 lb.; "The big mouthful" is 1.6 lb. And the 70-200/2.8 IS is 3.2 lb without the tripod collar (3.5 lb. with it). I might decide to save my pennies for "the big mouthful". The f/4L sure is nice, but with IS it would be much nicer.